The Concorde was a massive failure. It was never economically viable. It cost too much to operate, and could carry too few passengers. Also its sonic booms were not conducive to an urban environment. If you look at the current trend, it is towards increased capacity, while maintaining speed.
The SR-71 really only had two advantages. One was speed, the other was the high cruising altitude. This made it pretty impossible to intercept. However, you are flying a pilot (probably illegally) over foreign airspace. There has been plenty of examples of failure and embarrassment. It was a spy plane that took pictures, it had no arms, nor did it serve any other purpose. With the advent of better satellite imagery (and more satellites) and drones, why bother. Sure the SR-71 was pretty cool, but it was also expensive as well. Anyway it just doesn't make sense anymore.
Moving things physically is practically impossible (without some magic technology) on that scale of distance. Even projecting energy or waves any meaningful distance that are not meaningless is no easy task.
Atmosphere probably does not help either. Also unless using light, things like radio waves are just too slow, and will degrade. Even light, is pretty slow when you start looking at the scales involved, and light, needs to be narrowly focused, in that if it isn't aimed specifically directly at you, you will not be able to receive it. Unless you can control Sun/Stars and build Solar sized Mega Structures... all impossible.
Earlier this year, someone on here when talking about the topic of visiting one of our nearest neighbors did the math as to what a communications laser would have to do in order to keep contact with a spacecraft all the way to the planet in question. It was something spectacular, like having to have it in orbit, with the combined wattage of all our nuclear powered generation on earth, which would have to have some untold focusing and accuracy (not to mention material capacity to not destroy itself) as to not vaporize the thing at the receiving end.
So while the technology isn't quite as "magical" as physical movement at those scales, it is certainly fantastic to say the least. Anyway, with the scales involved I think it is pretty unsurprising that we haven't found anything, nor will we likely.
It is like an ant in New York, travelling to Tokyo, or trying to communicate with another ant there. Sure perhaps he can magically hitchhike a ride somehow, but practically not really possible. Then consider that the scale is less likely New York to Tokyo and more like New York and the Moon....
Or does a 5MW nuclear reactor sound very very small. Like small enough that it is one of those experimental ones that produce medical isotopes. Also if it is so small, how is is producing enough "material" for 100+ bombs? Reactors are usually measured by the GW. This would be what, a 0.005 GW facility? Makes me a bit skeptical of the estimated claims.
Also with that last statement being that all their attempts of launching missiles end with blowing them up prematurely, it sounds like if even were they to build some warheads, they are likely more a danger to themselves than anyone else...
Whatever the case, this is probably just more posturing for more aid and less sanctions like they do every couple of years. I have a feeling that should they ever become a menace or real danger, they would suddenly find themselves in an overwhelming internal military coup and become a protectorate of China.
Bureaucrat: Hmmm comrade citizen, it seems my computnik indicates you do not exist. Citizen: Clearly I am standing right here! Bureaucrat: Not to worry comrade we will clean this error right up, Boris! Citizen:...
There will likely be some of that, but probably less than you might think. Firstly $1000 isn't a lot of money, particularly if other social programs disappear. Not sure what a 1 bedroom costs in your neck of the woods, but you wouldn't be able to afford much of anything else like heat, food, etc... Also I would imagine that they will all fall into the tax code. So the 12-24k (depending on 1vs2k/Month) bracket would not be taxed, as that would be stupid. While those above would. So someone who has nothing would be getting the full benefit, while someone already making money is only going to get a portion based on whatever tax bracket they are in.
The other risk is douchebags like Walmart using government subsidies to reduce their workers wages. That is we don't have to pay them that much because they have access to social programs like food stamps (which then get spent at Walmart). So this is something that already happens and exists today. Would it get worse with basic income? Perhaps. However that is easily combated by minimum wage regulation to prevent what is essentially war profiteering (war on poverty).
However one thing that I think keeps getting forgotten in this conversation is "Wealth" VS "Production". So yes some jobs are lost to robots, really more to process automation. In fact more could be said to be lost to foreign robots, i.e. outsourcing. However even Foxconn has indicated they are going to be building robots, so it really is just an unending cycle. As food for thought, Foxconn's biggest client is Apple, building iPhone and the like. Apple was announced as the largest holder of wealth (basically cash) in the world*. While interesting, the important part of that whole piece is the "*". Apple makes things, and employs people. That "*" indicates that the statement is true for all industries that are not in the financial sector. Meaning that by far the largest holders of wealth and cash in the world are financial institutions. Who mostly play with numbers to make money. They produce nothing, and employ very few, and what they use more than ever to generate more money is DEBT. Now try to align that with the whole system of poverty and lack of jobs, etc.... One could argue that the whole sick system is what got us here in the first place, and that things like universal income is treating a symptom and not the root cause.
Or they understand a few fundamental things about oil. Such that it is not going away for many things. Planes and Ocean transport for example. However as far as personal transport goes, yes that is something that is likely going to go away in the somewhat near future. They are betting in getting ahead of that curve. Also aside from the examples already mentioned, the other one is basically war, or strategic reserves for potential war. As reserves get scarcer, the cost will go up, and the less you need to squander on personal transport the better.
As mentioned by many, I would be a little concerned about how well an electric car will work when it is -25 Celsius out. Then again they could just be betting that by 2025 that will have been more less figured out (probably by reduction of efficiency simply by using some power to keep things relatively warm). Then again, they could have wording that allows them to extend the deadline for the ban. Heck it is a law and they are the government, nothing stopping them from simply changing their minds in 2025 and making a new law...
I mean clearly he is a smart guy and an astute businessman, but either this was out of context, off the cuff, or not a clearly thought out comment.
Just about everything follows the same general premise. In the beginning there is a lot of advancement, because there is a lot to discover, progress is rapid. Eventually things get a bit tougher, as generally speaking the low hanging fruit has already been picked. Near the end, as whatever it is we are talking about matures, there is less and less to work with, advances are small and subtle, and grind to almost nothing as you go.
Add to this, typically the reason we do things, capitalization, there comes a time where sure you can make something go 1/100ths faster or whatever, but due to costs which unless they go down (which there is also limits to), makes the incentive to advance any further increasingly diminish. Law of diminishing returns in general. Sure if you take that particular diminishing curve as it approaches infinity, you can predict pretty much anything. However that is an abstract concept and construct, not a real thing in reality. In reality things are not so simple and mathematical. The spherical cow joke for example.
Yeah we have come a long way with AI and VR, etc... in the last 20 years, I've seen it. Yes I agree we have ample room to grow with these technologies. However to assume that the last 20 years of growth is representative of the next 20 years, let alone the next 10,000 is silly. Indeed extrapolating that far out considering all the factors and variables that could occur in that period is literally nothing more than fantasy.
I think the point is that H-1B visas are not necessarily a bad idea, in fact they are a very good idea, and keeping that talent an even better one. The problem is that the program seems to be HEAVILY abused, and either the regulation is weak and needs to be much stronger, or the compliance is weak and needs to be made much stronger, or both.
Remember the purpose of H-1B visas isn't supposed to be about replacing your expensive US workers, with cheap overseas workers. It is supposed to be used only to fill highly qualified positions where there is no local alternative. Clearly in many cases this is not happening. If the regulation was tightened to block whatever loopholes might exist, AND very large penalties assigned for breaches, AND investigation/enforcement consistently done, these would not be a problem but rather a boon.
So if you take what he says "But I’m the one that knows how to change it. Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me.", one could translate that to mean basically: I know how to fix the problem of this regulation being abused because I've abused it in the past and I know what needs to be changed to stop people from abusing it further.
Anyway here is how 2016 seems to be shaping up: Everyone seems to hate Hillary, and Everyone seems to think Trump is Crazy. OK now vote: Hate VS Crazy!
Kodos: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us! Man: He's right, this is a two-party system. Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate. Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
And if Krang wins we'll force you all to build a giant Ray Gun, erm I mean Wall!
Really? A "news" story about Gawker by Gawker on a secret plan to destroy them because Gawker reported on a billionaire who funded lawsuits against Gawker...
Really?
Gawker.
Does anything think they have a shred of integrity at this point?
I think people are missing the point. The post and many posts cite electrolysis, getting hydrogen from water as the primary source of where all this hydrogen might come from. However from my little understanding it is much easier to get it from coal through gasification. At which point the whole environmental thing makes less sense, but it starts making more economic sense. While perhaps not as bad as a coal burning plant, I expect it isn't all that much better. However with coal plants being decommissioned left and right, you have two things, one is (particularly in the US) an established coal industry and reserves (with lobby etc...), and a source of energy that is literally dirt cheap. So you wrap the environmental flag around the whole hydrogen thing, save your coal industry, and gain some oil independence. Anyway that is how I read the whole "hydrogen" thing. It isn't particularly good as a storage medium for a number of reasons, though it does have a few advantages, but it's bigger usage would be that it can leverage coal. However that is only if they can sell it as environmentally sound, make a few electrolysis plants as a front, then produce the bulk of it keeping the coal industry in the US afloat at the same time.
They must be fans of Reagan and trickle down economics if they think killing billionaires will hurt the US economy. If anything the only thing that might hurt is investment in China, India and various other places where everything is outsourced.
If they really want to tear down the USA economy, given recent history, their best bet would either be: A) Go to school, get a business degree, start/buy a bank on Wall Street, and start making ridiculous investment vehicles for hedge funds to bet on. Of course they will have to compete with all the Americans actively trying to do the exact same thing anyway. B) Get into US politics, and enable A).
While I have been using the Word variant for some years, and it does have its issues, most of which are formatting and conversion related, I generally was OK with it.
I've also used the Excel variant and it did the small jobs I needed it to do.
However just this week I decided to foray into the Access variant (Called "Base"), and insofar as first impressions go, it was unusable. What should have been an easy task caused it to fail several times badly, prompting me to give up and just do it manually in a spreadsheet.
So I guess it really depends on what your usage is, which will determine how successful or easy a transition it will be. If your entire organization is going to be using it, then the formatting and conversion issues disappear, until you have to share something outside that is. However that said, my abit brief experience with Base was horrible. I mean Access has it's issues, but for small tasks it isn't too bad, but Base couldn't even do that apparently. Then again your "normal" office user probably never touches Access/Base anyway, so maybe a moot point. Some military IT folks might be smashing some things in frustration however for some simple DB type tasks...
I've heard this as well, it is probably hard to tell really. The bombs being distinct points in time are easy to point to and are the accepted rationale.
However from what I heard it wasn't so much about where the Japanese had troops deployed for defense, but rather the eventual outcome. I think the leaders knew what was coming, if they decided to unconditionally surrender or not, they were going to lose, and have an occupying force.
Would you prefer that force to be the Americans, or the Soviets? From what I have heard in many cases the Soviets could be just as brutal as the Japanese during the war, so there is that. There is also the fact, that it is more than likely Japan would have become a Soviet state (until it all broke up later of course).
So yeah, taken all those considerations the bomb while perhaps helped in the decision, may have been a convenient excuse to essentially pick a winner, what was probably thought of at the time as the lesser of two evils.
Transformation is corporate speak for layoffs. I've experienced it myself in the last couple of years. So if management starts talking about "Transformation", "Realignment", or "Reorganization", they are all the same thing, layoffs, get your resume ready.
In a very parallel situation, we had a specific group of IT workers, win a sector award the same year that they were all "Transformed" into unemployed. All of this with a Union, such that it is. About the only help it did was that a small percentage of workers were able to move into new positions, however most were lost.
I also remember the Iridium constellation. It was massively expensive. When they tried to pass onto consumers. Not only with 5000$ "phones" but with insanely priced subscription packages that really put them out of reach for anybody without either extreme need or for government/industrial/military use. So while it seem to be sold as a "personal" solution, it really priced itself out of that market pretty quickly.
True, though it really depends on how much Trump softens his rhetoric during the presidential race, and also how much Sanders really wants to make a difference and if he is willing to concede certain things, as without power nothing is going to happen. It is all very far fetched anyway, party lines and the like... I see Sanders as much less likely to agree, but Trump has pretty much already shown his contempt for much of the Republican party, which is pretty amazing considering he is going to be leading it lol!
As for the the two points on the differences. I think they are both right really. As per Sanders I am sure there are plenty of good politicians that should much of the money be taken out of the equation that the relief of that pressure and temptation would let them trend toward doing the right thing. That said, no matter what you do there will be politicians that will be able to bend something to their own personal advantage at the expense of the people... So I don't really see a big difference there.
On some specific issues, yes they would have some pretty major conflicting ideas, which is why I think it would be great. They might end up complimenting each other, or at the very least simply avoid dealing much with those particular issues.
The US has a lot of problems, but most of them would probably work themselves out naturally if the primary one (money in politics) was addressed in any meaningful way. If Trump/Sanders were able to do that one thing in one term, it would be probably one of the greatest political successes in US history. After that, have another election on the issues and go from there.
So I've had some predictions, and it looks like I am doing pretty good so far. I have a friendly two part 10$ bet with a friend at the start of this whole mess. The first part was that Trump would win the Republican nomination, the second was that he would beat Hillary to become president. Neither of us live in the US, but he thought I was crazy to take that side of the bet.
There are a whole lot of reasons for this firstly the Republicans showed a lack of cohesion by diluting their leader nomination with 16! candidates. Trump if he has done anything well with his life it was building the name recognition of the "Trump" brand. If you asked 10 people who the candidates are, most people probably couldn't remember the other 15 names, but everyone will know who the hell Trump is. Second, for having so many candidates, how the heck did you find so many crazy ridiculous people? I mean Trump for all the nutbar things he has said, is the least crazy person on the list. I know I was briefly excited about Ben Carson, hearing he as a neurosurgeon, I figured he must be smart and educated, surely he will have some good ideas! Though it seems all you need is steady hands, not a stead mind... (Though I did seem him on the Daily Show and he did seem much better, perhaps he just did a really horrible job of presenting himself). At any rate another thing is that he is "honest" and not a politician, which speaks to a lot of voters who are really disenfranchised with the whole process and want real "change" (would be funny if he stole Obama's slogan!). Lastly Trump is able to reasonably argue that his fiscal success, and deal making etc... will be a boon for the American economy, jobs, etc... As that is always a top 3 if not #1 election issue every single year. So yeah, I predicted it, and I am not in the least surprised. For good or ill, I also think that he was the only one that could challenge the Democrats.
Now on the other side, the Democrats, I really like Bernie Sanders, I think he would probably be the best thing for the US in a very long time. That said, I think Hillary is going to beat him for a number of reasons. First is the fact that he is Old. Just some bad timing really. You only have a set window to be able to do this sort of thing, and he couldn't have won against Obama, but now he is the oldest Candidate, and while not by a large margin, he also does really look old, which people make fun of all the time. There would be the fear (real or not) the guy might die while in the job, never a good thing. Here is where him having a really really strong VP running mate would have made a huge difference I think. The other thing that Hillary has going for her that Bernie does not is a lot of the minority vote, which I am not sure really why to be honest, but it is definatly there. Lastly and also a big one is Money. Hillary has a ton of it, and Bernie does not. In US politics this doesn't always trump (pun intended) not having it, but it does make a big difference. As Bernie has pointed out Hillary stands for the wall street, and a lot of special interests which also inflates her coffers. So unfortunately for Bernie (and probably the US) I think Hillary has a big advantage and is likely to win the Democrat nomination. Oh and Hillary also has a whole bunch of "super delegates" in her corner, which if I am honest I am really not all that certain how that all works, but it doesn't sound good for Bernie.
Now when it comes down to the actual election between Hillary and Trump, I think there is (as crazy as it sounds) a pretty good chance, and I would say a better chance that Trump will win over Hillary. When my friend was incredulous over this prediction asking how that is even possible, the first thing I pointed out was US recent historic voting record. They elected George W Bush, despite him being the obviously crazy guy that he was. Then they elected him again. So just like Toronto mayoral races, where a guy like Mel Lastman gets two terms, a guy like Rob Ford can also win. So there is a precedent for electing a pr
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. We've moved forward.
The Concorde was a massive failure. It was never economically viable. It cost too much to operate, and could carry too few passengers. Also its sonic booms were not conducive to an urban environment. If you look at the current trend, it is towards increased capacity, while maintaining speed.
The SR-71 really only had two advantages. One was speed, the other was the high cruising altitude. This made it pretty impossible to intercept. However, you are flying a pilot (probably illegally) over foreign airspace. There has been plenty of examples of failure and embarrassment. It was a spy plane that took pictures, it had no arms, nor did it serve any other purpose. With the advent of better satellite imagery (and more satellites) and drones, why bother. Sure the SR-71 was pretty cool, but it was also expensive as well. Anyway it just doesn't make sense anymore.
Moving things physically is practically impossible (without some magic technology) on that scale of distance. Even projecting energy or waves any meaningful distance that are not meaningless is no easy task.
Atmosphere probably does not help either. Also unless using light, things like radio waves are just too slow, and will degrade. Even light, is pretty slow when you start looking at the scales involved, and light, needs to be narrowly focused, in that if it isn't aimed specifically directly at you, you will not be able to receive it. Unless you can control Sun/Stars and build Solar sized Mega Structures... all impossible.
Earlier this year, someone on here when talking about the topic of visiting one of our nearest neighbors did the math as to what a communications laser would have to do in order to keep contact with a spacecraft all the way to the planet in question. It was something spectacular, like having to have it in orbit, with the combined wattage of all our nuclear powered generation on earth, which would have to have some untold focusing and accuracy (not to mention material capacity to not destroy itself) as to not vaporize the thing at the receiving end.
So while the technology isn't quite as "magical" as physical movement at those scales, it is certainly fantastic to say the least. Anyway, with the scales involved I think it is pretty unsurprising that we haven't found anything, nor will we likely.
It is like an ant in New York, travelling to Tokyo, or trying to communicate with another ant there. Sure perhaps he can magically hitchhike a ride somehow, but practically not really possible. Then consider that the scale is less likely New York to Tokyo and more like New York and the Moon....
Or does a 5MW nuclear reactor sound very very small. Like small enough that it is one of those experimental ones that produce medical isotopes. Also if it is so small, how is is producing enough "material" for 100+ bombs? Reactors are usually measured by the GW. This would be what, a 0.005 GW facility? Makes me a bit skeptical of the estimated claims.
Also with that last statement being that all their attempts of launching missiles end with blowing them up prematurely, it sounds like if even were they to build some warheads, they are likely more a danger to themselves than anyone else...
Whatever the case, this is probably just more posturing for more aid and less sanctions like they do every couple of years. I have a feeling that should they ever become a menace or real danger, they would suddenly find themselves in an overwhelming internal military coup and become a protectorate of China.
Bureaucrat: Hmmm comrade citizen, it seems my computnik indicates you do not exist. ...
Citizen: Clearly I am standing right here!
Bureaucrat: Not to worry comrade we will clean this error right up, Boris!
Citizen:
There will likely be some of that, but probably less than you might think. Firstly $1000 isn't a lot of money, particularly if other social programs disappear. Not sure what a 1 bedroom costs in your neck of the woods, but you wouldn't be able to afford much of anything else like heat, food, etc... Also I would imagine that they will all fall into the tax code. So the 12-24k (depending on 1vs2k/Month) bracket would not be taxed, as that would be stupid. While those above would. So someone who has nothing would be getting the full benefit, while someone already making money is only going to get a portion based on whatever tax bracket they are in.
The other risk is douchebags like Walmart using government subsidies to reduce their workers wages. That is we don't have to pay them that much because they have access to social programs like food stamps (which then get spent at Walmart). So this is something that already happens and exists today. Would it get worse with basic income? Perhaps. However that is easily combated by minimum wage regulation to prevent what is essentially war profiteering (war on poverty).
However one thing that I think keeps getting forgotten in this conversation is "Wealth" VS "Production". So yes some jobs are lost to robots, really more to process automation. In fact more could be said to be lost to foreign robots, i.e. outsourcing. However even Foxconn has indicated they are going to be building robots, so it really is just an unending cycle. As food for thought, Foxconn's biggest client is Apple, building iPhone and the like. Apple was announced as the largest holder of wealth (basically cash) in the world*. While interesting, the important part of that whole piece is the "*". Apple makes things, and employs people. That "*" indicates that the statement is true for all industries that are not in the financial sector. Meaning that by far the largest holders of wealth and cash in the world are financial institutions. Who mostly play with numbers to make money. They produce nothing, and employ very few, and what they use more than ever to generate more money is DEBT. Now try to align that with the whole system of poverty and lack of jobs, etc.... One could argue that the whole sick system is what got us here in the first place, and that things like universal income is treating a symptom and not the root cause.
Or they understand a few fundamental things about oil. Such that it is not going away for many things. Planes and Ocean transport for example. However as far as personal transport goes, yes that is something that is likely going to go away in the somewhat near future. They are betting in getting ahead of that curve. Also aside from the examples already mentioned, the other one is basically war, or strategic reserves for potential war. As reserves get scarcer, the cost will go up, and the less you need to squander on personal transport the better.
As mentioned by many, I would be a little concerned about how well an electric car will work when it is -25 Celsius out. Then again they could just be betting that by 2025 that will have been more less figured out (probably by reduction of efficiency simply by using some power to keep things relatively warm). Then again, they could have wording that allows them to extend the deadline for the ban. Heck it is a law and they are the government, nothing stopping them from simply changing their minds in 2025 and making a new law...
Elon Musk should read this comic:
https://xkcd.com/605/
I mean clearly he is a smart guy and an astute businessman, but either this was out of context, off the cuff, or not a clearly thought out comment.
Just about everything follows the same general premise. In the beginning there is a lot of advancement, because there is a lot to discover, progress is rapid. Eventually things get a bit tougher, as generally speaking the low hanging fruit has already been picked. Near the end, as whatever it is we are talking about matures, there is less and less to work with, advances are small and subtle, and grind to almost nothing as you go.
Add to this, typically the reason we do things, capitalization, there comes a time where sure you can make something go 1/100ths faster or whatever, but due to costs which unless they go down (which there is also limits to), makes the incentive to advance any further increasingly diminish. Law of diminishing returns in general. Sure if you take that particular diminishing curve as it approaches infinity, you can predict pretty much anything. However that is an abstract concept and construct, not a real thing in reality. In reality things are not so simple and mathematical. The spherical cow joke for example.
Yeah we have come a long way with AI and VR, etc... in the last 20 years, I've seen it. Yes I agree we have ample room to grow with these technologies. However to assume that the last 20 years of growth is representative of the next 20 years, let alone the next 10,000 is silly. Indeed extrapolating that far out considering all the factors and variables that could occur in that period is literally nothing more than fantasy.
I think the point is that H-1B visas are not necessarily a bad idea, in fact they are a very good idea, and keeping that talent an even better one. The problem is that the program seems to be HEAVILY abused, and either the regulation is weak and needs to be much stronger, or the compliance is weak and needs to be made much stronger, or both.
Remember the purpose of H-1B visas isn't supposed to be about replacing your expensive US workers, with cheap overseas workers. It is supposed to be used only to fill highly qualified positions where there is no local alternative. Clearly in many cases this is not happening. If the regulation was tightened to block whatever loopholes might exist, AND very large penalties assigned for breaches, AND investigation/enforcement consistently done, these would not be a problem but rather a boon.
So if you take what he says "But I’m the one that knows how to change it. Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me.", one could translate that to mean basically: I know how to fix the problem of this regulation being abused because I've abused it in the past and I know what needs to be changed to stop people from abusing it further.
Anyway here is how 2016 seems to be shaping up: Everyone seems to hate Hillary, and Everyone seems to think Trump is Crazy. OK now vote: Hate VS Crazy!
Kodos: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!
Man: He's right, this is a two-party system.
Man 2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
And if Krang wins we'll force you all to build a giant Ray Gun, erm I mean Wall!
I'm thinking some sort of turtle tether for example...
As you say, for those people that make minimum wage, where might they eat out most often? Robots don't eat either.
Really? A "news" story about Gawker by Gawker on a secret plan to destroy them because Gawker reported on a billionaire who funded lawsuits against Gawker...
Really?
Gawker.
Does anything think they have a shred of integrity at this point?
I think people are missing the point. The post and many posts cite electrolysis, getting hydrogen from water as the primary source of where all this hydrogen might come from. However from my little understanding it is much easier to get it from coal through gasification. At which point the whole environmental thing makes less sense, but it starts making more economic sense. While perhaps not as bad as a coal burning plant, I expect it isn't all that much better. However with coal plants being decommissioned left and right, you have two things, one is (particularly in the US) an established coal industry and reserves (with lobby etc...), and a source of energy that is literally dirt cheap. So you wrap the environmental flag around the whole hydrogen thing, save your coal industry, and gain some oil independence. Anyway that is how I read the whole "hydrogen" thing. It isn't particularly good as a storage medium for a number of reasons, though it does have a few advantages, but it's bigger usage would be that it can leverage coal. However that is only if they can sell it as environmentally sound, make a few electrolysis plants as a front, then produce the bulk of it keeping the coal industry in the US afloat at the same time.
They must be fans of Reagan and trickle down economics if they think killing billionaires will hurt the US economy. If anything the only thing that might hurt is investment in China, India and various other places where everything is outsourced.
If they really want to tear down the USA economy, given recent history, their best bet would either be:
A) Go to school, get a business degree, start/buy a bank on Wall Street, and start making ridiculous investment vehicles for hedge funds to bet on. Of course they will have to compete with all the Americans actively trying to do the exact same thing anyway.
B) Get into US politics, and enable A).
Oh for the vote Karma, this would have gotten one of my Funny mod points!
While I have been using the Word variant for some years, and it does have its issues, most of which are formatting and conversion related, I generally was OK with it.
I've also used the Excel variant and it did the small jobs I needed it to do.
However just this week I decided to foray into the Access variant (Called "Base"), and insofar as first impressions go, it was unusable. What should have been an easy task caused it to fail several times badly, prompting me to give up and just do it manually in a spreadsheet.
So I guess it really depends on what your usage is, which will determine how successful or easy a transition it will be. If your entire organization is going to be using it, then the formatting and conversion issues disappear, until you have to share something outside that is. However that said, my abit brief experience with Base was horrible. I mean Access has it's issues, but for small tasks it isn't too bad, but Base couldn't even do that apparently. Then again your "normal" office user probably never touches Access/Base anyway, so maybe a moot point. Some military IT folks might be smashing some things in frustration however for some simple DB type tasks...
I've heard this as well, it is probably hard to tell really. The bombs being distinct points in time are easy to point to and are the accepted rationale.
However from what I heard it wasn't so much about where the Japanese had troops deployed for defense, but rather the eventual outcome. I think the leaders knew what was coming, if they decided to unconditionally surrender or not, they were going to lose, and have an occupying force.
Would you prefer that force to be the Americans, or the Soviets? From what I have heard in many cases the Soviets could be just as brutal as the Japanese during the war, so there is that. There is also the fact, that it is more than likely Japan would have become a Soviet state (until it all broke up later of course).
So yeah, taken all those considerations the bomb while perhaps helped in the decision, may have been a convenient excuse to essentially pick a winner, what was probably thought of at the time as the lesser of two evils.
Transformation is corporate speak for layoffs. I've experienced it myself in the last couple of years. So if management starts talking about "Transformation", "Realignment", or "Reorganization", they are all the same thing, layoffs, get your resume ready.
In a very parallel situation, we had a specific group of IT workers, win a sector award the same year that they were all "Transformed" into unemployed. All of this with a Union, such that it is. About the only help it did was that a small percentage of workers were able to move into new positions, however most were lost.
Progress.
To a chapter from MIB he was obviously an Alien...
I also remember the Iridium constellation. It was massively expensive. When they tried to pass onto consumers. Not only with 5000$ "phones" but with insanely priced subscription packages that really put them out of reach for anybody without either extreme need or for government/industrial/military use. So while it seem to be sold as a "personal" solution, it really priced itself out of that market pretty quickly.
True, though it really depends on how much Trump softens his rhetoric during the presidential race, and also how much Sanders really wants to make a difference and if he is willing to concede certain things, as without power nothing is going to happen. It is all very far fetched anyway, party lines and the like... I see Sanders as much less likely to agree, but Trump has pretty much already shown his contempt for much of the Republican party, which is pretty amazing considering he is going to be leading it lol!
As for the the two points on the differences. I think they are both right really. As per Sanders I am sure there are plenty of good politicians that should much of the money be taken out of the equation that the relief of that pressure and temptation would let them trend toward doing the right thing. That said, no matter what you do there will be politicians that will be able to bend something to their own personal advantage at the expense of the people... So I don't really see a big difference there.
On some specific issues, yes they would have some pretty major conflicting ideas, which is why I think it would be great. They might end up complimenting each other, or at the very least simply avoid dealing much with those particular issues.
The US has a lot of problems, but most of them would probably work themselves out naturally if the primary one (money in politics) was addressed in any meaningful way. If Trump/Sanders were able to do that one thing in one term, it would be probably one of the greatest political successes in US history. After that, have another election on the issues and go from there.
Further to this, why do they need a Virus Scan anyway? What is a device like this doing connected to the Internet or even their Internal network?
It is crazy I know, but would you put it past Trump?
That's like saying a Hydro plant has been built on Niagara Falls, forever proving Hydro's dominance over Coal!
Unless of course you don't have a massive water source.... or you live in the freaking desert.
So I've had some predictions, and it looks like I am doing pretty good so far. I have a friendly two part 10$ bet with a friend at the start of this whole mess. The first part was that Trump would win the Republican nomination, the second was that he would beat Hillary to become president. Neither of us live in the US, but he thought I was crazy to take that side of the bet.
There are a whole lot of reasons for this firstly the Republicans showed a lack of cohesion by diluting their leader nomination with 16! candidates. Trump if he has done anything well with his life it was building the name recognition of the "Trump" brand. If you asked 10 people who the candidates are, most people probably couldn't remember the other 15 names, but everyone will know who the hell Trump is. Second, for having so many candidates, how the heck did you find so many crazy ridiculous people? I mean Trump for all the nutbar things he has said, is the least crazy person on the list. I know I was briefly excited about Ben Carson, hearing he as a neurosurgeon, I figured he must be smart and educated, surely he will have some good ideas! Though it seems all you need is steady hands, not a stead mind... (Though I did seem him on the Daily Show and he did seem much better, perhaps he just did a really horrible job of presenting himself). At any rate another thing is that he is "honest" and not a politician, which speaks to a lot of voters who are really disenfranchised with the whole process and want real "change" (would be funny if he stole Obama's slogan!). Lastly Trump is able to reasonably argue that his fiscal success, and deal making etc... will be a boon for the American economy, jobs, etc... As that is always a top 3 if not #1 election issue every single year. So yeah, I predicted it, and I am not in the least surprised. For good or ill, I also think that he was the only one that could challenge the Democrats.
Now on the other side, the Democrats, I really like Bernie Sanders, I think he would probably be the best thing for the US in a very long time. That said, I think Hillary is going to beat him for a number of reasons. First is the fact that he is Old. Just some bad timing really. You only have a set window to be able to do this sort of thing, and he couldn't have won against Obama, but now he is the oldest Candidate, and while not by a large margin, he also does really look old, which people make fun of all the time. There would be the fear (real or not) the guy might die while in the job, never a good thing. Here is where him having a really really strong VP running mate would have made a huge difference I think. The other thing that Hillary has going for her that Bernie does not is a lot of the minority vote, which I am not sure really why to be honest, but it is definatly there. Lastly and also a big one is Money. Hillary has a ton of it, and Bernie does not. In US politics this doesn't always trump (pun intended) not having it, but it does make a big difference. As Bernie has pointed out Hillary stands for the wall street, and a lot of special interests which also inflates her coffers. So unfortunately for Bernie (and probably the US) I think Hillary has a big advantage and is likely to win the Democrat nomination. Oh and Hillary also has a whole bunch of "super delegates" in her corner, which if I am honest I am really not all that certain how that all works, but it doesn't sound good for Bernie.
Now when it comes down to the actual election between Hillary and Trump, I think there is (as crazy as it sounds) a pretty good chance, and I would say a better chance that Trump will win over Hillary. When my friend was incredulous over this prediction asking how that is even possible, the first thing I pointed out was US recent historic voting record. They elected George W Bush, despite him being the obviously crazy guy that he was. Then they elected him again. So just like Toronto mayoral races, where a guy like Mel Lastman gets two terms, a guy like Rob Ford can also win. So there is a precedent for electing a pr